Respecting the rights of all means that I respect your right not to eat meat or to eat meat from a supermarket and not to hunt. I expect the same respect.
Democrats' health bills depend on forcing individuals to buy insurance or face severe fines or imprisonment.
More Columns >>>
- > Charles M. Arlinghaus: The new health care bureaucracy (18)
- > Kathy Sulivan: Don't read too much into recent election results (18)
- > Joe McQuaid: Not to be outdone, the Granite State must have a fossil to call its own (8)
- > Two stories for the book on hunting (7)
- > Fergus Cullen: Is Lamontagne too good for politics? (6)
- > Garth Corriveau: Time to deliver better government for Manchester (19)
- > Douglas J. Wenners: Congress' proposed reforms will raise health insurance rates (35)
- > Charles M. Arlinghaus: City's revenue sharing loss was inevitable (12)
- > Deroy Murdock: Pelosi's health care bill is the nanny state run amok (31)
- > Joe McQuaid: Contemplating a misplaced grandkid, Kathleen Parker's visit
- > John Clayton: Dad takes on 'Naked Baby Syndrome' (14)
- > John Harrigan: We can't let this go without a challenge (21)
- > Greg Moore: Tuesday's message from voters: Butt out, party bosses (8)
- > Kathleen Parker: Saving the news (11)
- > Grace Mattern: Domestic violence is a bigger problem than many realize (9)
Robert D. Novak: Will Democrats heed labor's demand on trade pact?
By ROBERT D. NOVAK
Thursday, Apr. 3, 2008
PRESIDENT BUSH next week will send Congress a trade agreement forcing Democrats to make an unpleasant choice. Will they follow the bidding of organized labor and reject a pact negotiated more than a year and a half ago with the country's strongest ally and best customer in South America?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not want to make her members cast votes on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement. It is unconditionally opposed by the AFL-CIO, which is uninterested in negotiating changes. But to forget about a vote this year as Pelosi wants would be akin to an outright rejection in its international implications.
It would humiliate Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, a free-trader and a bulwark against the spreading influence in Latin America of Venezuela's leftist strongman, President Hugo Chavez.

The difficulty in getting only about 30 House Democrats to provide the needed margin of victory reflects the Democratic Party's abandonment of free trade over the past half-century. Less obvious, labor's intense opposition shows that the AFL-CIO no longer leads the way against the far left throughout the world, as it did under George Meany and Lane Kirkland in bygone years. Their successors are not concerned with the prospect of Chavez, allied with communist Cuba, dominating the Western Hemisphere.
Colombia has fought a long, successful battle against leftist guerillas supported and financed by Chavez. As a faithful U.S. ally, Uribe has been astounded by the fate of the trade agreement. Since it was signed in November 2006, not one congressional hearing has been held. To please Democrats, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab has gone back to Bogota and won changes on labor and environmental issues. Even now, she is willing to add trade adjustment subsidies for displaced workers in quest of a bipartisan deal. But nothing budges labor.
Schwab's pleas to Democrats are about bread and butter. The agreement removes a $200,000 tariff on Caterpillar off-road tractors going into Colombia, producing thousands of jobs for Americans. Under the Andean Trade Preference Act, recently extended by Congress, Colombia has nearly total duty-free access into the United States, but the AFL-CIO insists it cannot approve the agreement because of the way Colombian unions are persecuted.
A rare insight into what the Uribe regime really thinks is going on was provided me by Vice President Francisco Santos on one of the many trips to Washington by senior Colombian officials to court congressional support. Santos told me Chavez's controlled labor unions in Venezuela are in close touch with Colombia's leftist unions, who in turn influence the AFL-CIO. Thus, the labor intransigence in Washington can be traced to Caracas.
An AFL-CIO delegation to Colombia in mid-February headed by Linda Chavez-Thompson met with Uribe, who promised to deal with alleged violence against Colombian labor leaders. But the Americans spent most of their time with their Colombian compatriots, who recited horror stories of persecution. After the visit, the AFL-CIO Executive Council announced on March 4, "Should it come up for a vote this year, we will mobilize the unions and the resources of the federation to defeat it."
Rep. Sander Levin, a longtime labor stalwart from Michigan who has become the vicar of protectionism as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Trade, has called Bush's decision to send the trade agreement to Congress "a step backward." That implies a step away from a bipartisan accord, but what the Democratic leadership wants is no action at all.
This attitude cannot be removed from the contest between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over who hates most the North American Free Trade Agreement. At a Johnstown, Pa., town meeting last weekend, a questioner blamed NAFTA for local jobs outsourced to India. Obama had to politely remind the questioner that the treaty concerned Mexico and Canada, not India, before getting in his licks against NAFTA.
There are enough Democratic politicians embarrassed by protectionist sloganeering that they would be inclined to support the Colombian agreement -- were it not for labor's intervention. How many Democrats in Congress will qualify for a profile in courage by not heeding the AFL-CIO's dictates on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement?
Robert D. Novak is a political columnist and commentator on FOX News.

.jpg)




Andrew Cline has been editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader since October of 2001. His writing has appeared in more than 100 newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and National Review.
Print
Email
Mobile
Reader comments
YOUR COMMENTS
Bolivia's president Evo Morales, an ally of Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez, is responsilble for the increase in coca leaf growing. Both are left wing extremists who hate the USA. Venezuela's financing of FARC is to be expected as the fall of Columbia in to the leftist sphere of Chavez would be a solid block on Panama's southern border. But the USA union leaders only are interested in seeing Democrats elected to congress and the White House. They pour millions of union members dollars in to this goal instead of working to unionize US workers.
- Joe Conway, Charlestown, NH
Paul Wolf maybe you should read the news. Did you see what happened early last month when Colombian President Alvaro Uribe says he will ask the International Criminal Court to bring genocide charges against President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
He accused Mr Chavez of sponsoring and financing Colombian Farc rebels.
Or do facts not matter to you?
- David, Salem
BTW it bears noting that until a decade ago, our favorite ally in Latin America, Uribe, was knows by US intelligence agencies to be one of Latin America's biggest drug dealers. Here's the 4 year old story in Newsweek about it:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/54770
- Santos, Washington DC
I think Mr. Novak should try doing a bit more research into the subject and tone down the speculation and ill informed rhetoric. There are no proven financial ties between Chavez and the FARC, and the point about the complaint of jobs moving to India has nothing to do with NAFTA or the AFL-CIO's position on the matter. Nor, in fact, does it concern the Democrats position, since Mr. Novak himself states that Sen. Obama corrected the questioner before returning to the subject at hand.
I wish I could believe that this was a slip-up or error on the part of Mr. Novak, but his past history strongly suggest these points are intentionally misleading. Ill-researched rhetoric like this sullies the fine reputation of NH's best paper.
- AlexL, Manchester
Clever ploy here. Blame somethng you don't like on the Democrats even though it might be bad for any number of other reasons than your political dislikes. Look at what has happened in Central and South America as a result of Milton Friedmans "free trade" policies jammed down their throats by the CIA, WTA and the World Bank. We have destroyed the economies of Chile, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Argentina, and Brasil. In those countries, publicly owned assets have been looted by international corporations, large numbers of workers have dropped further below the poverty line, International Debt has gone through the roof. In Bolivia, due to the efforts of Sachs, most of the economy has shifted to the growing of Coca leaf. Are we fighting a war on drugs or a war to increase drugs? At home, free trade has resulted in increasing the already large income division between you and the rich, manufacturing jobs going overseas, huge trade imbalances etc. Now I wonder why Congress is reluctant to do more of the same? This is a critical part of the Republican dream.
- Robert, Deerfield
It's because Uribe is perceived not so much as a US ally as a Bush ally. A Bush protege in fact, whose conflict resolution strategy is just like Bush's "war on terror".
Better check the facts about Venezuela financing the FARC - Bob Novak's work is normally good but here he's drifting into conspiracy theories.
- Paul Wolf, Washington DC
NOTE: If you have visited this page before, newer comments may be hidden. Press F5, or hold down the Ctrl key while reloading or refreshing the page. (Another option for Firefox users is the Clear Cache add-on.)